Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

314 ITR 62Supreme Court of India2009#69 most cited

What is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

739

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · 314 ITR 62 · Section 37(1) · provision for warranty expenses · allowability of provision · definition of liability · present obligation · reliable estimate · mercantile system of accounting · revenue expenditure deduction

Also reported as

223 CTR 425

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(a)(ia)Section 115JBSection 14ASection 147Section 234CSection 40(a)(i)

Issues it is cited on

section 35denduring benefitsection 32(1)put to useblock of assetssection 40(a)(i)intangible assetsmercantile system of accountingsection 35section 37(1)section 32revenue expenditure

Judgments citing Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

Kansai Nerolac Paints Limited (Erstwhile Known As Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT, Range 6 (2), Mumbai

Accordingly we see no infirmity in the decision of CIT(A) and uphold the decision of the CIT(A). This ground of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 143(2)Section 145ASection 35DSection 36(1)(va)Section 40

…ision for warranty. The assessing officer has disallowed the provision made for the relevant year on the ground that it is a contingent liability and the Assessee has not met the following 3 conditions laid down by the Apex Court in Rotork Controls India Ltd. 314 ITR 62 viz. a. An enterprise has a present obligation as a result of past event. b. It is probable that an outflow of resources will be required to settle the obligation and A reliable estimate can be made of the amount of obligation. c. 30. The assessing officer further held that there was no scientific or actuarial basis for the provision by relying u…

Credit Guarantee Fund Trust for Micro and Small Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT (E), Mumbai

ITA 2684/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

…such provisions financial result would give distorted picture of financial affair of the assessee trust. 26 M/s. Credit Guarantee Fund Trust For Micro And Small Enterprises 28. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Rotrock Control India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT 314 ITR 62 held provision on account of warranty in respect of product sold by the assessee as legitimate deduction. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case of Parth Movers 245 ITR 428 (SC) has also decided the issue at hand by returning following findings: “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, that the provision made by the assessee company for m…

Alstom T & D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2094/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ee disallowed provision for warranty expenses, even though the assessee has explained the method of providing for warranty expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 3.1 The ld. DR, Shri. P. Divahar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, if you go through the provision created and utilized by the assessee for last five years, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is not creating provision for warranty in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

Alstom T & D India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2093/CHNY/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ee disallowed provision for warranty expenses, even though the assessee has explained the method of providing for warranty expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 3.1 The ld. DR, Shri. P. Divahar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, if you go through the provision created and utilized by the assessee for last five years, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is not creating provision for warranty in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Areva T & D India Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2082/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ee disallowed provision for warranty expenses, even though the assessee has explained the method of providing for warranty expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 3.1 The ld. DR, Shri. P. Divahar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, if you go through the provision created and utilized by the assessee for last five years, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is not creating provision for warranty in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

ACIT, Chennai vs. Areva T & D India Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2081/CHNY/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Nov 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2093 & 2094/Chny/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Alstom T&D India Limited, The Dcit / Ito (Tds), (Previously Areva T&D India V. Ltu, Limited) Chennai. 19/1, I.O.C, Gst Road, Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 062. [Pan: Aaacg-2115-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Tushar Jarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri. P. Divahar, CIT
Section 143(3)

…ee disallowed provision for warranty expenses, even though the assessee has explained the method of providing for warranty expenses. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rotork Controls India Pvt Ltd vs CIT, 314 ITR 62 (SC). 3.1 The ld. DR, Shri. P. Divahar, CIT, supporting the order of the ld. CIT(A) submitted that, if you go through the provision created and utilized by the assessee for last five years, it is abundantly clear that the appellant is not creating provision for warranty in line with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of…

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 413/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.413/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Coal India Ltd…………..………...................................................……Appellant Coal Bhawan, Premise No.4, Mar, Plot Af-Iii, New Town, Rajarhat, Kolkata-700156. [Pan: Aabcc3929J] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 21, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 16, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. No One Has Come Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even On Earlier Dates, Despite Several Notices, No One Has Put In Appearance On Behalf Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Decide The Appeal After Hearing The Ld. Dr.

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 28Section 36(1)(i)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 43B

…during the year and only a provision is created in the books of accounts by the appellant. 5.9 With respect to the case laws of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) and case of Rotorks Control India (P.) Ltd. vs CIT [314 ITR 62] relied upon by the appellant to substantiate that the PRP is not a contingent liability but an ascertained liability, it is observed that those cases are not applicable to the case at hand since those are factually distinguishable which is explained as follows: A. In the case of Bharat Earth Movers vs. CIT reported at 245 ITR 428 (SC) (i) In this…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 521/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. Additional CIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 520/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 519/JODH/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 518/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

M.G.B. Gramin Bank (Through Successor Rajasthanmarudhara Gramin Bank), Jodhpur vs. ACIT, Pali

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 517/JODH/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

ACIT, Circle, Pali vs. M/S. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur

Appeals are disposed off in the terms indicated as above

ITA 504/JODH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Goutam Chand Baid, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 36(1)(viia)

…the subsequent year was exactly same and there was no variation. 23 ITA Nos. 504/Jodh/20218 &Ors. Asstt. CIT v. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank &Ors. Appellant also relied upon the ratio of undernoted judgments: Rotork Controls India P. Ltd. v. CIT [2009] 314 ITR 62 Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen [1969] 73 ITR 53 and Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428. CIT vs Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd [80 DTR (Dei) 7] The Jalore Central Co Operative Bank Ltd. vs ACIT [ITAT Jodhpur Bench ITA No 39/Jodh/2012 Dated 09/06/2014] [PB Pg 142 to 153, 149, 151-152] Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd vs ACIT…

Nvh India Auto Parts Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2773/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2773/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nvh India Auto Parts Private Deputy Commissioner Of Limited, V. Income-Tax, B-68, Sipcot Industrial Park, Corporate Circle -4(2), Irungattukottai, Sriperumbadur Nungambakkam, Taluk, Kancheepuram – 602 105. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aaccn-2857-P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. S.P. Chidambaram, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2023

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

…ials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The sole basis for the assessee to seek deduction towards provision for warranty expenses is the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rotork Controls India (P) Ltd vs ACIT, 314 ITR 62, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, if provision for warranty is created on scientific basis and further said provision is crystallized during the year, then same needs to be allowed as deduction. In the present case, the assessee itself has admitted that warranty has been provided on the basis of agreement with original equipment manufact…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Raipur vs. Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 54/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…

Mesers South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 33/RPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur vs. South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 171/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…

South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 169/RPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 99/BIL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. The South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Bilaspur, Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee as well as revenue are either allowed, partly allowed for statistical purposes or dismissed, in accordance with our observations herein above

ITA 98/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.201/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.401/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.162/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.102/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.169/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Vs Jcit, Range-1, Bilaspur Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Bil/2012 (Ay : 2009-2010) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.382/Bil/2014 (Ay : 2010-2011) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Bil/2015 (Ay : 2011-2012) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2012-2013) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.99/Bil/2017 (Ay : 2013-2014) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Rpr/2017 (Ay : 2014-2015) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.171/Rpr/2018 (Ay : 2015-2016) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.54/Rpr/2019 (Ay : 2016-2017) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., Seepat Road, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aadcs 2066 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ajit Korde, Advocate, Shri Ankur Goel & Shri Ankit Agrawal, Cas राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/10/2023

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Korde, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

…014, 103/BIL/2015, 98,99/BIL/2017, 188/RPR/2017, 171/RPR/2018, 54/RPR/2019 7.5 To support the aforesaid arguments, Ld AR, relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Insilco Ltd, (2009) 320 ITR 322 (Delhi) ii) Rotork Controls Ltd vs CIT, (2009) 314 ITR 62 (SC) follows Metal Box India Ltd. (73 ITR 53 (SC), iii) PCIT vs Nokia India Pvt Ltd., [2018] 98 taxmann.com 415(Delhi) iv) DCIT vs PFC Ltd (ITA No.50/Del/2014) order dated 13.5.2016 v) The Tinplate company of India ltd vs DCIT (ITA No.1070/Kol/2018) vi) Bharat Earth Movers vs CIT, (2000) 245 ITR 428 (SC) 7.6 The Ld. AR also submitted copy of sampl…